Add a rally, forum, town hall, or other event to collect RSVPs, give attendees directions and more.
Add events from your existing Ning or MeetUp groups to share with other FreedomConnector activists.
Let other FreedomConnector activists join your cause to mobilize for freedom!
A high school football booster club in Ventura was prohibited from selling Chick-fil-A sandwiches at its back-to-school night event because the principal didn’t like the restaurant owner’s position on gay marriage, according to CBS Los Angeles.
Val Wyatt, principal of Ventura High School, was quoted in the Ventura County Star as stating, “With their political stance on gay rights and because the students of Ventura High School and their parents would be at the event, I didn’t want them on campus.”
The principal was echoed by Ventura Unified School District Superintendent Trudy Tuttle Arriaga, who said, “We value inclusivity and diversity on our campus and all of our events and activities are going to adhere to our mission.”
The local Chick-fil-A had offered to donate 200 meals for free, having already given $21,000 to the booster club. However, because the deceased owner of the restaurant chain, S. Truett Cathy, was well-known for being a religious Christian, and his son, current president, Dan T. Cathy, is known for his anti-gay marriage stance, the school rendered this decision.
read more here: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Calif......
Counting votes behind closed doors, letting uncertified voters vote, stacking wards with majority party poll workers — questionable activities at Burlington, Vt., polling places reveal a need for greater scrutiny of elections, two citizen poll watchers say.
On Aug. 26, Wendy and Jim Robert spent the day at Burlington’s Ward 7 voter precinct to get a closer look at how elections work in the Queen City.
As voting rolled on, the Burlington residents became disturbed by what they saw — and in one case, what they weren’t allowed to see.
“Jim was told he had to leave at 7 p.m. and that no one could stay that was not an official poll worker. Everyone who was not a poll worker was escorted out of the building and the doors were then closed,” Wendy Robert told Vermont Watchdog.
When voting hours ended, Jim Robert asked to watch the counting of write-in and absentee ballots. But poll workers shuffled everyone out of the building, locked the doors and began counting ballots.
What happened behind closed doors is anyone’s guess.
The Roberts reported seeing other confusing poll activities. In numerous instances, people whose names were not on the voter rolls were allowed to sign a form and vote — on the spot, and without any evidence of having registered. Their names were then hand-written onto the checklist.
“People who should potentially not be allowed to vote, who were not on the voter rolls, were being allowed to vote. … Poll workers were saying, ‘It’s fine, it’s OK,’” Wendy Robert said.
Throughout the day, the Roberts observed propaganda in voting areas, improper counting of absentee ballots, unbalanced party representation and excessive socializing by election officials.
Four Men in Two Cities Killed in Acts of Islamic Jihad; Media, Obama, and Holder Silent
Brendan Tevlin was a 19-year old from New Jersey who had just finished his freshman year at the University of Richmond. Like many kids his age, he played sports and video games. He also liked to surf. Brendan also played the bagpipes and was a Eucharistic minister at his church. But none of those things led to his tragic death. What led to Brendan’s death is that he was an American.
Ali Muhammad Brown, 29, was charged with the murder of 19-year old Brendan Tevlin on June 18th. Brown also confessed to killing two people, Ahmed Said and Dwone Anderson-Young, in Seattle on June 1. In addition, he was also charged with shooting another man, Leroy Henderson, in the Skyway area of Seattle in April. All of the men were killed with a 9 mm handgun.
There is consistency in Brown’s statement to police in both King County in Seattle, and Essex County, N.J. He told authorities that he was doing his small part as vengeance for U.S. actions in the Middle East.
Q13 FOX in Seattle reports that Brown described the killing of Tevlin to authorities in New Jersey as a ‘just kill’ which he defined as as a target that was an adult male, not a woman, child or elderly person. Brown stated, ““My mission is vengeance. For the lives, millions of lives are lost every day,” he reportedly said. “Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, all these places where innocent lives are being taken every single day … All these lives are taken every single day by America, by this government. So a life for a life.”
Todd Pettingill, radio host of The Todd Show in the Morning, on 95,5 in New York, discussed this jihad killings on his radio show. He said, “If there was ever a reason to riot in the streets in the name of humanity, it would be for this case. But, has that happened? No. And I’m not suggesting that it should. What did the friends of family of Brendan Tevlin do? They had a candlelight vigil. What I am suggesting should happen is that this should be talked about and written about and the American people should know. Why is Eric Holder not visiting the Tevlin family? Why is the President not going to mention Brendan Tevlin tonight? He was a young boy who was killed…for being an American.”
In addition to calling out Holder and Obama for their failure to give any attention to these jihad killings that were done on American soil, Pettingill also said, “It was in fact an act of jihad, perpetrated by a fellow American who sympathized more with those who want to annihilate us than with his own country and its people.”
But, with ISIS on a bloody killing spree in the Middle East in their quest to establish a caliphate and their threats to take their attacks onto American soil, the only Brown the media wants to talk is Michael Brown. The media and Congress want to put more emphasis on the domestic abuse case surrounding Ray Rice than acts of jihad in America with men being killed simply for being an American. And Barack Obama wants to deny the severity of ISIS and, in fact, refuse to even recognize that they are dangerous Islamic terrorists who kill innocent people. Perhaps Obama should pay attention to the news more often. He would learn that not only do people kill innocents in the name of Islam, but it is happening already right here in the United States.
What rights do Americans, as individuals really have?
We have the Bill of Rights which grant us many things and many people seem to think we are limited to those rights and a few others which came afterwards. However AMENDMENT IX of the Bill of Rights says differently and have you ever even thought about the 9th Amendment?
The Ninth Amendment was James Madison’s attempt to ensure that the Bill of Rightswas not seen as granting to the people of the United States only the specific rights it addressed. In recent years, some have interpreted it as affirming the existence of such “unenumerated” rights outside those expressly protected by the Bill of Rights. http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/a...
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Enumeration: a collection of items that is a complete, ordered listing of all of the items in that collection.
(1756) The act of numbering or counting over http://books.google.com/books?id=z3kKAAA...
Construe 1 to analyze the arrangement and connection of words in (a sentence or sentence part) 2 to understand or explain the sense or intention of usually in a particular way or with respect to a given set of circumstances
(1756) 1. To range words in there natural order. 2. To interpret; to explain http://books.google.com/books?id=bXsCAAA...
Disparage: to describe (someone or something) as unimportant, weak, bad, etc
(1756) 1. To match unequally, to injure by union with something inferior in excellence. 2. To injure by comparison with something of less value. 3. To treat with contempt; to mock; to flout. 4. To bring reproach upon; to be the cause of disgrace http://books.google.com/books?id=bXsCAAA...
So lets reword the amendment to fit the definition of certain words.
The "counting over" in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be "interpreted" to deny or "treat with contempt" others retained by the people.
Okay so at first glance one could say it was one talking about the rights within the Bill of Rights and others which are not mentioned and I would agree but is also uses the "Constitution" and "of certain rights" which would include the rights of Congress which are limitations and I would say they were not interpreted or treated with contempt, that all rights not granted were ours.
Authoritarians like to jump to the tenth amendment which grants all powers not delegated to the federal government are "to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" but the states are also limited by the Bill of Rights and certain powers granted to the Fed. So do the 10th change anything in the states rights and powers? I say no but the 9th made it clear We the People have more, many more rights than those few which are mentioned. The Constitution without or with the 10th still restricts states from those listed in the Bill of Rights and granted states no additional powers.
So why to authoritarians skip over the ninth amendment and go straight to the tenth amendment?
What are your thoughts on the Freedom From Religion Foundation?
Intolerance and disrespect towards our own religious culture is a puzzling thing. The stories continue to pour in about atheist groups or our educational centers censoring Christian expression through fear or intimidation.
Arkansas State forced to remove Christian crosses
In one example of an attorney having too much time on their hands, one letter of complaint attorney forced Arkansas State to remove a decal of a cross on the back of their helmets which honored two fallen personnel on the football team.
For two weeks with perhaps millions of impressions nobody complained until an attorney spotted the Christian crosses on a nationally televised football game. After the attorney babbled about the crosses being in violation of the US Constitution, Arkansas State made the decision to remove the crosses even though there is nothing in litigation concerning Christian crosses on football helmets.
Adding insult to injury, the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter congratulating the university on “cleansing” the helmets of the Christian symbols, implying directly as though there was something dirty about the Christian cross.
You can always expect somebody to take the low road or make unnecessary insults against Christianity.
Jesus Not Allowed in School
Last year a first grader brought Christmas gifts of candy canes to the class and attached a story regarding the origination of the candy cane. A little 6-year old boy named Isaiah excitedly pass out his presents to his classmates.
Enter the school principle who gave the teacher instructions to tell the little boy “Jesus is not allowed in school” and had the teacher ripped each message off each candy cane and threw the messages in the trash in front of Isaiah. The lack of tact and refusal to apologize will eventually end up costing the school district plenty.
The teacher, principle, school district, and higher authorities have failed to understand and protect the religious freedom of little Isaiah in complete disregard of the US Constitution.
A complaint was filed in federal court regarding students who enter the classroom are not restricted of their First Amendment rights. The parties against Isaiah need a lesson regarding the Constitution.
Atheists claim housing allowance for pastors unconstitutional
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is at it again with its bullying. This time they want the IRS to stop allowing a housing allowance to pastors, or in essence the atheists are trying to tell the IRS how to do its job.
Since 1913 the IRS has allowed the housing allowance not to be classified as income, and under the pretense of being concerned about making it equitable for small and large churches, the FFRF case has gone to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The judges have already voice concern about the FFRF having any merit in the case which is in the case of many FFRF lawsuits that all have failed eventually. It is surprising a lower court even listened to the baseless suit of the FFRF let alone making a suspect ruling.
Atheists don’t like chaplains performing their duties
A Florida school district is redefining the role and name of chaplains in its public schools after the Freedom From Religion Foundation complained about pastors praying with students before and after high school football games in Orange Country. The FFRF claimed using pastors as chaplains is an illegal religious endorsement.
To comply with the FFRF the chaplains will now be called “life coaches” and will no longer be allowed to read scripture or pray with the students.
It is unfortunate that school districts are so fearful at being sued that they will cave in to such demands from the FFRF.
Democrats vote against displaying “In God we Trust”
All democrats except one voted against displaying our national motto “In God we Trust” inside the meeting venue that the county council meets. All republicans voted for the display.
The display would have also included a state motto of “Virtue, Liberty, and Independence” and a US motto, “E Pluribus Unum”.
County Executive Rich Fitzgerald (D) had threatened to veto the measure with the paranoid explanation that the right-wing evangelical Christians across the country were attempting to “impose” Christianity in public buildings.
Sure…”In God We Trust” is only an idea from the right-wing evangelical Christian even though it is our national motto.
Donated monument with small cross angers atheists
The Freedom From Religion Foundation fired off a letter objecting to a donated monument at Whitewater Memorial State Park in Liberty, Indiana. A chainsaw-carved monument includes a small white cross at the bottom which brought the ire of the atheist group.
The monument’s artist Dayle Lewis said the cross was include because the soldier is standing over a grave and the cross is a common part of military graves.
“We didn’t think this would be a religious thing, “ remarked Lewis in an interview to “The Indiana Star”.
According to sources Indiana is waiting to hear further from the atheist group because “most threats from the atheists group fail to materialize”.
Now in chapter ten we go through a series of judges quite rapidly.
After Abimelech there rose to defend Israel Tola, a man of Issachar; [from the tribe of Issachar] he dwelt in Shamir in mount Ephraim. He judged Israel for twenty-three years, he was buried in Shamir. And after him there arose Jair, a Gileadite, and he judged Israel for twenty-two years. Now he had thirty sons that rode on thirty ass colts, and they had thirty cities, which are called Havothjair unto this day, which are in the land of Gilead. And Jair died, and was buried in Camon. And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the LORD, and they served Baalim, and Ashtaroth, the gods of Syria, the gods of Zidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the children of Ammon, the gods of the Philistines, and they forsook the LORD, and did not serve him (Jdg 10:1-6).
So, here we go again. Another apostasy where the children of Israel turn against God and they begin to worship every god that is around.
Now, here was the hardest thing to comprehend. God, at the time of Jeremiah when the people again were in an apostasy, God said to Jeremiah, "Has it ever been in any nation, in any land, where people have forsaken their god? And yet Israel has forsaken me, the true and the living God and they worshiped these other gods. They have forsaken me, the fountain of living water and have hewn out for themselves cisterns, cisterns that can hold no water." God was appalled by the thing, "Hey this doesn't happen. People don't forsake their gods even that are not gods." And yet the children of Israel, it seems, were perennially forsaking God and turning to idolatry. Unthinkable and yet they did. So this is just another one of the apostasies. Actually, it is the sixth time that it has been recorded that they forsook God and began to worship and serve these other gods.
And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, he sold them this time into the hands of the Philistines, and the hands of the children of Ammon. And that year they vexed and oppressed the children of Israel: for eighteen years, and all the children of Israel that were on the other side of Jordan in the land of the Amorites, which is in Gilead. Moreover the children of Ammon passed over Jordan to fight against Judah, and against Benjamin, and against the house of Ephraim; so that Israel was sore distressed (Jdg 10:7-9).
Now Rueben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh that was on the other side of Jordan, they were now being oppressed by the Amorites that were over on that area that actually were in the territory before they had come. But then the children of Ammon pass on over Jordan and began to fight in the land of Judah and Benjamin and all, Ephraim.
And the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, saying, We have sinned against thee, both because we have forsaken our God, and also because we have served Baalim (Jdg 10:10).
Double sins; forsaking God, one. Serving Baalim, two.
And the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Did not I deliver you from the Egyptians, from the Amorites, from the children of Ammon, from the Philistines? From the Zidonians, and from the Amalekites, and the Maonites, who did oppress you; and you cried to me, and I delivered you out of their hands. Yet you have forsaken me, and served other gods: wherefore I will deliver you no more. Go and cry unto the gods which you have chosen; let them deliver you in the time of your tribulation (Jdg 10:11-14).
So Israel at this point had come to a very sad point in their history for God said, "Hey, I delivered you from the Egyptians, from the Amorites, from all of these people; the Philistines and now you've forsaken me. I'm not gonna deliver you anymore. You go and call upon the gods that you have chosen to serve. Let them deliver you." It is possible for a person to sin against the grace of God to the point where God turns that person over to a reprobate mind. God is through with us; that's it.
God said to Jeremiah concerning Ephraim he said, "Hey, Jeremiah don't pray anymore for Ephraim, for her good. For if you do I'm not gonna even listen to your prayers." To, what was it? Hosea, he said, "Ephraim has given over to her idols, let her alone." I'm through. I'm not gonna deal with them anymore. I've had it. Tragic, when God says of a person, "Hey that's it. I'm not gonna deliver you anymore. You've chosen to serve these other gods, you made your choice. All right, call on them. Let them deliver you from your tribulation."
People oftentimes say it really doesn't make any difference which god you serve, you know, all roads lead to heaven. False. It makes a big difference the god that you serve, but it really makes the big difference when you're in trouble. That's when the difference really shows up, when you're really needing help. And God says, "Cry unto the gods that you have chosen to serve." But they can't help me.
So, the children of Israel said unto the LORD, we have sinned: [they began confessing] do thou unto us whatsoever seems good to you; deliver us only, we pray thee, today. And thy put away the strange gods from among them, they served the LORD: and his soul was grieved for the misery of Israel (Jdg 10:15-16).
So God has a soft touch I guess and the people did the right thing and God went ahead to deliver them once more. And the person that God chose at this time was Jephthah the Gileadite, chapter eleven. He became the ninth judge.
Next is the explanation of Book of Judges Chapter 11
Hurricane Odile, a Category 4 storm, is expected to affect life on the Baja California peninsula in Mexico on Sunday night and Monday, the National Hurricane Center said.
As of Sunday afternoon, Odile was located about 290 miles (465 kilometers) south-southeast of the southern tip of the peninsula, with maximum sustained winds of 135 mph (220 kph).
Hurricane warnings are in effect from Punta Abreojos to La Paz.
The Hurricane Center's public advisory said the eye of the storm is expected to move northwest over the next two days.
6.0-magnitude quake shakes California
CNN|Added on August 24, 2014The strongest earthquake to hit California since 1989 jolted the state's wine country and caused a state of emergency.
YOU THINK ***UNHOLYWOOD GETS IT???
The Guardian Liberty Voice conducted an online interview with prominent transhumanist and author Gennady Stolyarov. Stolyarov recently wrapped up a campaign to raise money for distribution of his children’s book Death Is Wrong to children across the U.S. After learning of his campaign, GLV was inspired to delve deeper into the issues of transhumanism and the Singularity from the perspective of those who have have concerns about how future technologies will affect our lives.
The Guardian Liberty Voice conducted an online interview with prominent transhumanist and author Gennady Stolyarov. Stolyarov recently wrapped up a campaign to raise money for distribution of his children’s book Death Is Wrong to children across the U.S. After learning of his campaign, GLV was inspired to delve deeper into the issues of transhumanism and the Singularity from the perspective of those who have have concerns about how future technologies will affect our lives. We also asked Stolyarov about Google Glass and chief engineer at Google, Ray Kurzweil. Stolyarov gave tremendous insight into these issues and more.
GLV: Google chief engineer Ray Kurzweil is a transhumanist. He is working toward the Singularity and the day when computers become smarter than people. Many people have grave concerns about the safety of this. Do you know what steps are being taken to ensure that when AI intelligence supersedes human intelligence, that we will be able to control it, and/or that it will definitely be benign?
Stolyarov: I would question the ethics of attempting to “control” an intelligence that is truly sentient, conscious, and distinct from human intelligence. Would this not be akin to enslaving such an intelligence? As regards the intelligence being benign, there is no way today to ensure that any human intelligence will be benign either, but the solution to this is not to limit human intelligence. Rather, the solution is to provide external disincentives to harmful actions. Any genuinely autonomous intelligence should be recognized to have the same rights as humans (e.g., rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.) while also being subject to the same prohibitions on initiating force against any other rights-bearing entity. Furthermore, I think it is not correct to assume that intelligent AI would have any reasons to be hostile toward humans. For a more detailed elaboration, I would recommend the article “The Hawking Fallacy” by Singularity Utopia: http://www.singularityweblog.com/the-haw.... Here is a relevant excerpt: “Artificial intelligence capable of outsmarting humans will not need to dominate humans. Vastly easier possibilities for resource mining exist in the asteroid belt and beyond. The universe is big. The universe is a tremendously rich place.” The fact that humans evolved from fiercely competitive animals that often viewed the world in a zero-sum manner, does not mean that non-human intelligence will possess inclinations toward zero-sum thinking. Greater intelligence tends to correspond to greater morality (since rational thinking can avoid many sub-optimal and harmful choices), so intelligence itself, in any entity, can go a long way toward preventing violence and destruction.
GLV: What steps are being taken to ensure that people’s privacy will be protected if we merge with machines?
Stolyarov: Many people have already merged with machines in the form of prosthetic limbs, artificial organs, hearing aids, and even more ubiquitous external devices that help augment human memory or protect us from the elements. Almost none of these devices pose privacy concerns, any more than just being out in public would pose such concerns. I think virtually every technologist recognizes, for example, that having an artificial heart that is connected to an open network and whose configuration could potentially be directly altered by another user, would probably not be a good idea. The biggest protection of privacy in this area is common sense in how the technologies would be designed and deployed. Merger with machines is already a reality today, and the machines are genuinely part of us. As long as a system of private property remains, and the machines that augment an individual are considered that individual’s property and remain physically under that individual’s control, I think privacy is not diminished in any way. Consumer demand is also important to consider. Very few consumers would agree to purchase any kind of machine augmentation if they saw it to have severe risks to their privacy.
GLV: What steps are being taken to ensure that this new technology that will exist in the body will definitely not be vulnerable to hackers?
Stolyarov: While 100% guarantees do not exist in most areas of life, the design of any given technology can reduce its potential to be hacked. I would expect that any technology that exists in the body and needs to electronically communicate with other devices for any reason would do so using some sort of end-to-end encryption of the signal to prevent its interception by external parties. Also, it is important to keep in mind that such devices, if they communicate, would do so over channels that are distinct from those available to the general public. I do not think any inventor would design an organ that communicated with another device using the Internet that you and I use to communicate via e-mail. They would have their own dedicated, closed network on which they would send encrypted signals.
GLV: What is to become of people who want to opt out of merging with machines? Or people who want to opt out of any further technology? How can the leaders of transhumanism promise that people who want to remain human will not be discriminated against or be viewed as second class citizens?
Stolyarov: Transhumanists do not oppose those who wish to personally opt out of any technologies – including the Amish who reject many technologies that are less than 100 years old. While transhumanists might seek to voluntarily persuade others to adopt life-enhancing technologies, I am not aware of any transhumanist who seriously wishes to impose by force technologies that people would not wish to use. Politically, most transhumanists are either libertarians or left-progressives; both persuasions value personal choice and lifestyle freedom quite highly. In a transhumanist world, people will continue to have the ability to live as they please, though many of them would be drawn to the new technologies because of the improvements to quality of life, productivity, and available time that these technologies would bring. Simply protecting individual rights and free speech while letting consumer preferences motivate decisions by producers would produce an outcome that respects everybody.
GLV: Similarly, what if someone is unable to afford certain technologies? How can they be assured they will still have equitable access to everything they desire about the way their lives are currently?
Stolyarov: Technologies tend to follow a rapid evolution from being initially expensive and unreliable to being cheap and ubiquitous. Computers, cell phones, and the Internet followed this trajectory, for instance. There has not been a single technology in recent history that has remained an exclusive preserve of the wealthy, even though many technologies started out that way. Ray Kurzweil writes in his FAQ regarding his book The Singularity is Near(http://www.singularity.com/qanda.html), “Technologies start out affordable only by the wealthy, but at this stage, they actually don’t work very well. At the next stage, they’re merely expensive, and work a bit better. Then they work quite well and are inexpensive. Ultimately, they’re almost free. Cell phones are now at the inexpensive stage. There are countries in Asia where most people were pushing a plow fifteen years ago, yet now have thriving information economies and most people have a cell phone. This progression from early adoption of unaffordable technologies that don’t work well to late adoption of refined technologies that are very inexpensive is currently a decade-long process. But that too will accelerate. Ten years from now, this will be a five year progression, and twenty years from now it will be only a two- to three-year lag.”
GLV: Ray Kurzweil says he wants everyone to exist in virtual environments in the future. What if someone doesn’t want to exist in a virtual environment? Do we have assurances that our real environments won’t be taken away to somehow make room for virtual ones?
Stolyarov: I think it is impractical to wholly exist in a virtual environment, because any virtual environment has a physical underpinning, and it would be imprudent to completely distance oneself from that underpinning (as some sort of body – biological or artificial – would still have to exist in the physical world). Virtual environments would be places one could visit and stay for a while, but not too long, and not without breaks. Data storage is becoming exponentially cheaper and more compact by the year. By the time Ray Kurzweil’s vision could be realized, vast virtual environments would be hosted in less than the area of a room. No significant amounts of physical space would be compromised in any way. Indeed, if more people spend more time in virtual environments, then physical environments would become less crowded and more convenient to navigate for those who choose to primarily spend time in them.
GLV: What about population control? Resources?
Stolyarov: There is actually no shortage of resources even today to give everyone a decent standard of living; the problems lie in flawed political and economic systems that prevent resources from being effectively utilized and from reaching everyone. Overpopulation is not and will not be a significant problem. Max More provides an excellent, thorough discussion of this in his 2005 essay, “Superlongevity Without Overpopulation” -https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2005/02/superlongevity-without-overpopulation-1.php. He also notes S. J. Olshansky’s finding that even “if we achieved immortality today, the growth rate of the population would be less than what we observed during the post World War II baby boom” – so humans have already been in a similar situation and have come out more prosperous than ever before. As regards resources more generally, Julian Simon made excellent arguments in his free online book The Ultimate Resource II (1998) – http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ulti... – that resources are not fixed; they are a function of human creativity and technological ability. Yesterday’s pollutants and waste products can be today’s useful resources, and we will learn how to harness even more materials in the coming decades in order to enable us to continue improving standards of living.
GLV: Kurzweil says he is working on technology to bring people back from the dead. What if people do not wish to be brought back from the dead? What if they would not have given permission to have an avatar created of themself? Some people think that Kurzweil seems to have no concept of the word “ethics.” What are your thoughts on this?
People who are “brought back” from the dead or avatars of people who have died would not have the continuity of the experience of the dead person. They would not have the same “I-ness” as that of the person who died (though they may have a new “I-ness” and therefore be autonomous individuals in their own right). Therefore, the process of creating a person that resembles somebody who has died can be best thought as creating a new individual who has similar memories, personality traits, etc. This person may have his/her own ideas about whether he/she wants to live, irrespective of any wishes of the person who died previously, who would not be the same person. For more details on this, I recommend my 2010 essay “How Can I Live Forever?: What Does and Does Not Preserve the Self” – http://rationalargumentator.com/issue256.... In particular, I recommend the section titled “Reanimation After Full Death”.
GLV: Do you know anything about the transhumanists who have rented space in floating facilities at sea so they can work on experiments outside the jurisdiction of any regulatory body?
Stolyarov: I am not aware of any experiments by transhumanists on floating facilities at present. To my knowledge, the implementation of seasteading (http://www.seasteading.org/) – the creation of such modular floating facilities – is still years away. However, I am entirely in support of the idea that such experiments ought to take place among fully willing participants. For instance, if a terminally ill patient would like to try saving his or her life through an experimental therapy, I think it is immoral for any government authority to stand in the way of what could be that person’s last chance at life.
GLV: Many people find Google Glass to be repulsive and would be deeply offended at anyone who was wearing it while speaking to them. Similarly, many feel deeply offended when people look at their phones while speaking with them. Many find this to be rude and an abomination. How will those people be assured that they will still be able to have organic, real, in-depth human interaction with others without machine intrusion should the Singularity come to pass?
Stolyarov: Google Glass does not need to be turned on or actively used when worn. As with any technology, norms of behavior around it would develop to make sure that meaningful interaction is possible in a variety of contexts. The solution is never to ban or restrict the use of the technology, but rather to develop and disseminate an understanding of acceptable etiquette that most people could agree on. I remember a time in the early 2000s when cell-phone etiquette was still not well-developed, and many people would interrupt their face-to-face conversations to take unexpected calls. I have observed that this is largely not done anymore; most people keep their phones in a silent or vibrate-only mode and will often wait to respond to a non-emergency call until a face-to-face discussion has concluded. I expect that similar etiquette will develop around Google Glass. There may be a few years of growing pains while the technology is new, but this is a very small price to pay for progress.
Your support keeps freedom alive!